Commentary & Analysis

Besides being intrinsically interesting and well-written, Kirsten Powers' book, The Silencing, adds useful perspective to the struggle against Islamist suppression of speech about radical Islam. Powers notes the attempt to squelch discussion of Islam, but places it in a broader context.

Originally published under the title "Quebec Law Would Stifle Free Speech."

While the rest of Canada is being force-fed the Duffy Senate "scandal," in Quebec a proposed law that will label any criticism of Islam or Islamism as "hate speech" is being quietly pushed through the National Assembly.

Bill 59 will permit Muslims to make complaints to the Quebec Human Rights Commission (QHRC) against anyone critiquing Islam or Islamism, triggering lawsuits for hate speech.

Back on June 23, I blogged about Reed v. Town of Gilbert, a Supreme Court decision issued last term. The case concerned a challenge to an ordinance that regulated outdoor signs based on the type of speech they conveyed. Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas wrote that the regulation was improperly content-based in violation of the First Amendment. "Innocent motives do not eliminate the danger of censorship presented by a facially content-based statute," he wrote.

Originally published under the title, "A 'Pig' Incident in Jerusalem."

As most non-Muslim visitors to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem can attest, groups of screaming female banshees accost them, yelling Allahu akbar and other Islamic slogans, making for a highly unpleasant experience. (Called the Murabitat, or the Steadfast, they are funded by an Islamist organization.)

On schedule, this recurred on July 23, when a Jewish group visited the holy area.

Worse, the banshees followed the group outside the Temple Mount and into a surrounding street, harassing and threatening the group.

On July 16, 2015, the federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a wrongful termination suit against the Columbus City Schools by a Muslim teacher claiming retaliation for some religiously-motivated comments and actions. The suit was brought by Abdurahman Haji, an elder in the Somali community of Columbus, Ohio. Haji was hired in November 2005, to teach English as a Second Language at a public school, and discharged in April 2008.

Briefly, Haji's practice was to leave school early every Friday in order to lead prayers at his mosque. On his departure, he would not sign out from school. Usually, he would return to school after services, but if they ran long he would not return.

"Boss" Tweed, head of the corrupt late-19th century leadership of New York City known as "Tammany Hall," is reputed to have had a particular aversion to cartoonist Thomas Nast. Why? Because Nast exposed Tweed's corruption in a pictorial form that was easily understood and effective – by political cartoons. "Stop them damn pictures. I don't care what the papers write about me," were Tweed's instructions to his minions.

Why do people express serious concepts in cartoons? Because they are effective in getting the message across. Some cartoons are in good taste, some in bad taste.

Recently, there has been an encouraging amount of attention paid to the issue of free speech on the college campus. Some of it specifically discusses speech about Islam or Islamism, but a lot doesn't. The refusal to discuss radical Islam is, unfortunately, not an isolated event but one facet of political correctness in academia. The heckler's veto that is so obvious in situations like the Charlie Hebdo massacre and American newspapers' refusal to print Muhammad cartoons is an extreme expression of a phenomenon all too common in American universities today, of speech being policed and 'trigger warnings' required because a reader or listener takes offense to it.

The people voicing concerns are not new to the issue, but the amount of focused attention they have paid to it in just the last few months is noteworthy. Here's a suggested 'reading list' on the issue:

The video, purportedly a trailer for a movie, was created by dubbing film shot under the name 'Desert Warrior' into a diatribe against Muhammad. Eventually, an Arabic version was posted on YouTube. After the September 11, 2012, attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, the Obama Administration blamed the assault on Muslim protests about this selfsame video, and asked YouTube to remove it.

Originally published under the title "Billions for Tribute, But Not One Penny for Defense?"

On May 18, 2015, YouTube – or really its owner, Google, won a major victory for free speech. A U.S. appeals court rejected an actress's attempt to prevent YouTube from showing a movie trailer critical of Muhammad that has been blamed for 'causing' riots in the Muslim world on September 11, 2012.

Sadly, when it comes to criticizing Islam outside the U.S., Google is much less brave. It appears to have capitulated to Islamist lawfare in Australia without firing a shot in defense.

The PEN award to the survivors of theCharlie Hebdo massacre has drawn some very distinguished fire. On April 26, 2015, six PEN "table hosts," all highly regarded writers, publicly protested PEN's decision to give an award for "Freedom of Expression Courage" to these courageous survivors. This award, to be given on May 3rd, is separate from the literary prizes.

A French appeals court on December 18, 2014, overturned a hate speech conviction involving Christine Tasin's condemnation of Islam. Tasin's encouraging victory, won with Legal Project aid, demonstrates that not all threats to free discussion of Islam are violent like the subsequent Paris jihadist Charlie Hebdomassacre.

"Last June, I was acquitted of all charges by an Amsterdam court. The Middle East Forum's Legal Project ... was always there to help, advise and assist ... The importance of the MEF's Legal Project in reclaiming free expression and political discourse ... cannot be overestimated."